Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Symptomatic, Non-Limb-Threatening Peripheral Artery Disease: A State-of-the-Art Review

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are health outcomes directly reported by the patient that can be used to measure the effect of disease and treatments on patient perceived well-being. This review summarizes current evidence regarding the validation of PROMs in people with symptomatic, nonlimb-threatening peripheral artery disease. A literature search was conducted to identify studies of symptomatic peripheral artery disease without limb-threatening ischemia that included PROMs and had sample sizes =25. PROMs were summarized along a continuum of validation using classical test theory framework and according to whether they fulfilled defined criteria for (1) content validity; (2) psychometric validation; and (3) further validation evidence base expansion. Of 2198 articles identified, 157 (7.1%) met inclusion criteria. Twenty-four PROMs in patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease were reviewed. Among disease-specific PROMs, 8 of 15 had excellent reliability as measured by a Cronbach alpha >= 0.80. Based on established criteria for PROM responsiveness, 6 of 15 disease-specific PROMs demonstrated excellent sensitivity to change. Of these, the disease-specific peripheral artery questionnaire, vascular quality of life questionnaire, and walking impairment questionnaire met criteria for validation at each stage of the continuum. For generic (nondisease specific) PROMs, the European Quality of Life 5-Dimension and SF-36 had the most extensive evidence of validation. Evidence from this review can inform selection of PROMs aligned with scientific and clinical goals, given the variable degree of validation and potential complementary nature of the measures.

Automated summary

This review summarizes the validation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in people with symptomatic peripheral artery disease. The findings suggest that disease-specific PROMs have good reliability and sensitivity, while generic PROMs have more extensive validation evidence. These findings can guide the selection of PROMs aligned with scientific and clinical goals.